Remove tag from subscriber

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only the confirm=true gate and a boilerplate hedging clause ("May affect delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state") that is not specific about which side effects actually occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by consequences and the confirmation gate. Nothing is padded, though the middle consequence sentence is generic enough that it arguably wastes a slot.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, and the description does cover the confirm gate and warns of side effects. It still omits the most decision-relevant facts — how this differs from untag_subscriber_by_email and what exactly is destroyed — so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters — including confirm and account — are documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the confirm requirement without adding format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove tag from subscriber") matching the title, so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling untag_subscriber_by_email or from bulk_remove_tags_from_subscribers, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage rule offered is "Requires confirm=true" – a precondition, not routing guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over untag_subscriber_by_email, bulk_remove_tags_from_subscribers, or delete_subscriber, so alternative selection is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.